Preview

Native American Pros And Cons

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
624 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Native American Pros And Cons
Treaty is a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations. The formal document embodying such an international agreement. Treaties agreements negotiated between the US government and the Indian nation resulted in the Dakota people losing large portions of their land, the government illegally stole their land. And is after that when a series of treaties ware made with the Indians.
Sovereignty is supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community, so it’s basically a government or state having power and authority over another.
I think how treaty relates to sovereignty is because they both describe the idea of one been higher and having power over the other, because when the Indians sign the treaties they basically give up their power and all the power is to the government, the
…show more content…
But the government definitely didn’t uphold the obligation they should, treaties should have made each promised people happy and satisfied, but then the government agreement was illegal in so many ways, they made the Indians sign treaties that were not acceptable here is the definition of what it meant for Indians to get a treaty, “If you sign this treaty, you’re not going to ever have to work or hunt again; we’ll take care of you.' Everything will be provided. Every year you’ll get so much money to buy your needs, your pots and pans, but we’ll also have food coming in every month, or once a year for you. The other alternative is: 'We’re going to drive you all the way to the Rocky Mountains where you’re going to starve to death and we’ll never have to worry about you again.” Those were exactly the conditions Indians have to agree with by signing the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Sioux have staunchly maintained that the treaty ratified by the 1877 Act is void for several reasons, among which are the insufficient number of signatures, the coercive nature of the negotiations, and, most importantly, because the Black Hills were never for sale. Despite creating a Court of Claims to allow non-Indians to sue the federal government, claims by Indians were expressly barred until 1920. The Lakota’s appeal for monetary compensation, filed in 1923 and asserting that the seizure of the Black Hills constituted an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment, represented the only legal avenue for any redress for the loss of their land, and for decades the Lakota pursued the claim despite the inadequacy of any monetary award (Lenane,…

    • 122 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Apush Study

    • 19454 Words
    • 78 Pages

    1. In post-Civil War America, Indians surrendered their lands only when they received solemn promises from the government that they would be left alone and provided with supplies on the remaining land.…

    • 19454 Words
    • 78 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Dawes Act

    • 377 Words
    • 2 Pages

    With farming, the Indians had to pay taxes. The land was not a choice to get and now they have to pay taxes on it. If the didn’t pay taxes, then the land would be taken away. The Indians shouldn’t have had to pay taxes because they were forced to take control of the land.…

    • 377 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    According to Robert Bone, The term treaty generally included cash gratuities, and presents during the signing. Treaties between the two groups promised education, agricultural assistance, Rights to hunt and fish on crown land until such land was required for other purposes and land reserves to be held by the crown and entrusted to the Indian (Bone, 2011).Conflicts between the two signing parties of the treaties has arose during Canada in the 20th century as each group had different perceptions of the treaty agreements . This issue has caused a divide and has contributed tot the fault line between the two groups. The Crowns understanding of the treaties were that they would diminish aboriginal rights and their title to lands in hopes of having available land for agricultural advancements. As for the aboriginals, they understood it as an agreement to share the land and resources. With the two different perceptions of the treaties between the groups, conflict was bound to happen. An example of where conflict would occur was when government would sell crown land to corporations for extraction resources with out compensating the aboriginals. Many aboriginals lived on Crown land and the large corporations would destroy their natural way of life as they would interfere with hunting, trapping, fishing, and any many other resources needed to…

    • 1300 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ojibwa Vs Lakota

    • 1922 Words
    • 8 Pages

    First of all, the treaties were mostly fueled by the United States desire for westward expansion, land, and money. In the Ojibwa’s case, the United States was looking to capitalize on the area’s pine and copper and in the Lakota case, they were looking for gold, and area for miners and settlers to live. Along with this, in both cases, the United States came in and separated tribes that were feuding. For the Ojibwa, the establishment of Fort Snelling and the Crawford meeting were attempts by the United States to stop the feuding between the Ojibwa and the Dakota. The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1871 separated the four tribes in the Plains – the Lakota, the Crow, the Cheyenne, and the Arapahoe – from fighting by putting them on separate reservations. In both tribe’s treaty making process, the Americans clearly had the upper hand. They had more resources, land, men, and power. They used this to their advantage and the Indians knew it. In many cases they felt pressured to sign treaties. For example Henry Dodge pressured the Ojibwa chief Flat Mouth to hurry up and sign the treaty even though Chief Buffalo had not arrived yet. In the Lakota case, they did not really want to sign the treaties but the power of the United States frightened them and they knew that if they did not sign the treaties, that the United States would do what they want anyways. That is why…

    • 1922 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Dbq Indian Removal

    • 455 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Once the Indians or Cherokees sign the treaty, it is set that the Cherokees agreed to move. But not all of the Cherokees signed the treaty and they did not agree to move. Only a few Cherokees signed the treaty, so that means that some Indians agreed to move but they all moved anyways.…

    • 455 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Finally, the Indians should stay because they were there first. The Indians had their own government made after the U.S government. The Indians had a peaceful life when the Americans come in and make them sign the treaty. The Americans wanted land so they made the Indians move.…

    • 344 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Indian Removal Act Dbq

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The law required the government to negotiate removal treaties fairly, voluntarily and peacefully: It did not permit the president or anyone else to coerce Native nations into giving up their land.…

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    It was unfair for the Indians to move because moved Indians were treated badly, americans broke deals with the Indians, and the treaty was not as effective as everyone thinks. The Americans treated the Indians badly. The Americans gave some of their diseases to the Indians. For example, the Americans gave typhoid to the Indians. The Americans also stole the horses from the Indians.…

    • 294 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The United States signed land exchange treaties with small groups of Seminole and Cherokee. However, the people who signed did not officially represent their groups. Because of this, the treaties were not valid, or legal, according to the law.…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Some Indians recognized these injustices and disavowed the new treaty, remaining in their bison-rich lands.[1] They were angry and believed the chiefs were tricked into signing away their land and that the cheifs were only representing a portion of the tribe.[1] The Europeans arrogance allowed them to overlook these injustices and take the position that Indians…

    • 605 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Treaties to the Native Americans are the “Supreme Law of the Land” that binds the Native Americans…

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Government had agreed to deal with the Natives through "formal treaties", but a lot of changes were made as the government erased and redrew treaty line after treaty line, making their way more towards West. However, many Americans felt respect towards the Indians. They wanted them to be part of their society so they tried to Christianize them, civilize them, gave them the chance to attain literacy. Some Tribes resisted and some followed, especially the "Five Civilized Tribes"-which included the Seminoles, Cherokee, Creeks, Choctaw, and the Chickasaw. The Native Americans related to these tribes went to school, learned about agriculture, owned private property, and even owned black slaves. They became very open to the idea of joining the…

    • 303 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sovereignty in general terms means,” supreme authority.” It involves authority over all others within its field of operation, and the absence of any other superior authority in that same field. The United States has its own form of sovereignty, which is “Popular Sovereignty.” Popular sovereignty is,” the belief that the authority, legality and legitimacy of the government is created by the will or consent of its people” (Popular sovereignty: US history for kids***, 2015). Popular sovereignty ultimately leaves the source of political power in the hands of American citizens. The purpose of our government is to help regulate our American society. The government is solely based on the U.S Constitution, as the U.S. Constriction is considered to…

    • 346 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Permanent sovereignty reflects the inherent and superseding right of a state to control exploitation and the use of its natural resources. That is, a state has the right to exercise this right for the benefit of its citizens.…

    • 1359 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays